(Part 2) Top products from r/Debate

I doubt your Kant AC is best served by the omnilateral will. I am, of course, an expert after hearing the term for the first time in this post and reading a few excerpts of different pages. Instead, I'd check out Kant AC's from Circuitdebater. The best way to learn is by seeing people argue them and engaging the literature on Kant, but it also a huge help to see and read actual cases.

From Wikipedia:

>Historically, the Prussian philosopher Immanuel Kant defined omnilateral in the Science of Right, the first part of the Metaphysics of Morals (1797), as "derived from the particular wills of all the individuals".[1]


And from some Ripstein pieces:

>Third, Kant introduced an account of unilateral acquisition: the transition from an object’s being unowned to its being owned depends on a unilateral act of appropriation. The acquisition of property is nothing more than the change in the status from being subject to the choice of no person to being subject to the choice of some particular person, its owner. The affirmative act required to acquire an object is simply taking control of it and giving a sign that you intend to continue controlling it. Acquisition requires taking control, giving a sign, and bringing your act into conformity with a “general will.” Although a person acquiring an object does so on his or her own initiative without consulting others, the power to do so requires an omnilateral will to make the unilateral act binding on others. Kant thus treats initial acquisition as a special case of political authority. If you acquire an unowned object, you do not need to consult everyone who could conceivably be affected; such a requirement would violate the postulate of practical reason with regard to rights. Instead, you are entitled to act entirely on your own initiative. This raises an obvious question: why am I bound by your unilateral act? Your innate right prevents me from interfering with your act, but the fact that I may not interfere does not mean that your act has further consequences for my rights. Your act of acquisition casts a long shadow: you are entitled to exclude others from that object even when you are not using it. You are also entitled to dispose of it as you see fit, subject only to the requirement that you not violate the rights of others in so doing. You can give the fox to whomever you like, though you may not dump its rotting carcass on someone else’s land without the owner’s permission. Your right to exclude is established through your unilateral act, but the mere fact that you act unilaterally raises the question of how that action can bind me. As Kant puts it, a unilateral will is not a law for anyone else. The acquisition of property differs from other ways in which one person might be said to change the normative situation of another. If I wrongfully injure or interfere with you or your property, it is now permissible for you to claim damages from me. Such changes can (though need not) be thought of as changing your normative situation by creating new permissions to proceed against me. Your right to person and property is not changed, however, and, most significantly, you are under no new obligations. Your right to proceed against me is just your right to your person and property. Again, if I move from one place to another, I occupy space which is not available for your occupation while I am there. This change does not place you under a new obligation, but simply applies it to a different circumstance. In these examples, one person’s act does not change any other person’s obligations, but merely the way in which antecedent obligations apply. The acquisition of property is different: in acquiring a piece of land I make it unavailable to you even when I am not occupying it.

(Pages 150-151)

And I think the pclearest definition/summary[(https://www.law.utoronto.ca/documents/Ripstein/Kant_on_law.pdf):

>Kant’s point isn’t that you just need to think of others as authorizing your deed in order of it to bind them. The idea of a united choice that is presupposed by acquisition doesn’t determine the respects in which others are bound by your (implicitly omnilateral) deed. That is a matter that is by its nature open to dispute. Your claim is only provisional, because your judgment about the significance of your unilateral act for the freedom of others is from their standpoint nothing more than in your unilateral judgment, even if we both think of ourselves as upholding a system of equal freedom. We can, and should, strive to do what is right in a state of nature; every duty of right is also, indirectly a duty of virtue, which “commands us to hold the right of human beings sacred."23 But the most anyone can do is “what seems good and right to him,” that is, to enforce his own unilateral will. The unilateral aspects of your deed are reproduced in your judgment about its significance. Kant’s point about disputes is not just a reiteration of Locke’s familiar claim that people often disagree about the application of principles to particular situations, especially when their interests are at stake. Unilateral judgment is a problem because of the two dimensions of the innate right of humanity. The innate right to freedom demands that people be able to acquire things as their means without the explicit leave of others. Rightful honor requires people to stand up for their rights, and so that no person defer to any other private person’s judgment in cases of dispute about what either is permitted to do. If you think that you have performed an act establishing a right, you are entitled to stand by your claim in the face of all who contest it, but those who contest it are no less entitled to stand by their claims. Rightful honor requires that each party accept no standard other than “what seems right and good” to him.” 24 The only reason to defer is because you can’t win. Might makes right, regardless of how "good and law-abiding" you or the person who disputes your claim might be. The solution to disputes about rights is to make the omnilateral will institutional. Disputes can be resolved in a way that is consistent with rightful honor if the parties to it are subject to the authority of an impartial judge, and an enforcer who can carry out the decision. The state is a generalized version of this structure. It is a common authority, charged with making, applying, and enforcing law. It is legitimate because it makes it possible for people to resolve disputes about rights in a way that is consistent with the rightful honour of all. Legitimacy flows from what the state does, and so does not require an explicit act of instituting it.

(Pages 12-13)


Edit:

Send me a message if you want anything else cleared up.

Laptop Stand
I personally go paperless in PF debate, except for my flows. So having a stand to get my laptop off the desk and closer to eye-level is good. (The legs detract from the height in the picture.) Also this is widely used in my circuit by all laptop debaters and it is super reliable.

Extension cords for laptop chargers are also handy if you have a laptop with a low battery life. A lot of PC users end up using extension cords to charge their laptops in round.

Wireless Mouse
This is extremly useful when cutting cards on the go, in round throwing evidence into a speech, or even sorting through your articles in the Extemp prep room. So nice to have a cheap wireless mouse you don't have to worry about. I just use a Razer Naga for all the macros but I would reccomend the mouse I linked.

I just use my phone as a timer. I would really appreciate if someone linked a good timer that is more professional than my phone!

Also a good backpack that can hold tons of flow paper, a laptop, chargers, laptop stand, etc. without killing your back is important.

PM /u/noobld your email and your intentions of wanting to be on the drive.

Also, I feel like that this will also be of help to you, though this might be a bit advanced.
https://www.amazon.com/Websters-World-College-Dictionary-Fifth/dp/0544598229/ref=sr_1_5/168-8542197-0689260?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1486598089&sr=1-5

Lastly, please buy this online course, and make sure to complete it. It might help you in your future endeavors.
https://www.lingoda.com/english?utm_source=google&utm_medium=cpc_text&utm_campaign=%5BUS-EN%5Benglish%5D&utm_term=online%20english&gclid=CJbc1uzZgdICFY2JaQodjFAGjA

Ordinal numbers (first, second, third) are helpful for contestants and judges flowing the round to keep track of points. The tagline (or claim) for your argument should be clear, specific and concise/brief. Saying something vague like "First, this bill will help constituents" doesn't really describe an argument, whereas, "First, this bill provides tax relief to the burdened middle class" gives more context. Think of it this way: try to say as much as possible that summarizes each point in as few words as possible. Also, avoid "debatey" terms like "contention," or "claim." Instead, use words like "point," or "reason."


I highly recommend this book to frame your thinking about concision, coherence, and cohesion in both speaking and writing: https://www.amazon.com/Style-Basics-Clarity-Grace-5th/dp/0321953304/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=Style%3A+The+Basics+5th+Edition&qid=1550767232&s=gateway&sr=8-1

​

As for pen colors, I highly recommend one color for affirmative arguments, one color for negative, and another color for questions you'd like to ask (or to make other notes to yourself).

For laptop stands, I really hate the TableTotes, especially for PF. They are a pain to travel with and assemble in round, and the legs can break super easily. I use the Magma Folding DJ Stand, which is super compact and easy to travel with.
http://www.amazon.com/Magma-Aluminum-Traveler-Laptop-Stand-Silver/dp/B009IQBJIY/ref=sr_1_12?ie=UTF8&qid=1449726041&sr=8-12&keywords=magma+dj+stand

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0007ZGZW0/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_98aRBb7FN456Y

i used this stopwatch all four years of debate and still use it, i love it.

We sometimes use the card game Who Would Win? (available from Amazon and others) as a practice drill. It could easily be adapted to a rapid-fire participatory game with visitors to the booth. You can explain the few rules and run a round in under two minutes.

https://www.amazon.com/Fallacy-Detective-Thirty-Eight-Recognize-Reasoning/dp/097453157X/ref=nodl_

https://www.amazon.com/Sunbeam-61040-Timer-60-minutes/dp/B000I18PHG/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&qid=1501984591&sr=8-7&keywords=timer

Guaranteed to raise your speaks an average of 5 points- https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B002QZZ8PY/ref=mp_s_a_1_7?ie=UTF8&qid=1498918580&sr=1-7&pi=AC_SX236_SY340_FMwebp_QL65&dpPl=1&dpID=41YkvPSE7CL&ref=plSrch

This one?

• I always have a bunch of loose sheets of legal paper because I can't stand the legal pads (but that's just me)
  
• For pens, I am using these because I haven't gotten around to getting more G-2's
  
• A lifetime supply of neon index cards
  
• Highlighters
  
• Phone
  
• Storage box

Giroux is an awesome resource for media + class + education arguments, and here's some of his stuff:
media turns black people into threats, turning victims into monsters (https://www.counterpunch.org/2016/10/25/appetite-for-destruction-americas-war-against-itself/)
media erases the war crimes of past presidents and administrations (https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/04/27/unfashionable-fascism-mainstream-politicians-switching-sides-under-trumps-regime-of-barbarism/)
social media (easily linked to mainstream media sources through news media posting tweets from normal users, the president using twitter as a medium for foreign policy and publishing things ahead of the media, etc.): https://www.counterpunch.org/2015/02/06/selfie-culture-at-the-intersection-of-the-corporate-and-the-surveillance-states/

This book has a really awesome criticism of the media (naming names like Disney/Viacom) and its complicity and furtherance of militarism https://www.amazon.com/Imperial-Delusions-American-Militarism-Polemics/dp/0742527727

Michael Parenti would also be a solid resource for something critical in the media realm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Parenti